Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A)
1. Six Applicants have jointly filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and prayed for the following relief(s) :-
“(a) Allow the present OA and direct the respondents to consider for granting the antedate in situ promotions under FCS to the next grade to the applicants on their due date of respective eligibility, considering their residency period of services rendered by the applicants on respective posts. Further those applicants who were/are denied promotion/s and have already superannuated may kindly be considered for the deemed promotion on their respective due date of promotion and their pensionary benefits may be revised accordingly.
(b) Direct the respondents to consider the cases of the applicant and extend the same relief as granted by this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No. 2296/2009 (Annexure A-10) and granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Union of India and Anr vs. S.K. Murti (Annexure A-11), who were also similarly situated to the above name applicant.
(c) Pass orders granting any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(d) Award costs to the applicants against the respondents including the cost of litigation.”
2. The applicants in the present OA have joined in the respective grade of Scientist B/C/D on various dates, and are seeking promotion to the next higher post of Scientist grade under Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) after completion of prescribed residency period as per the Gazette Notification dated 09.11.1998 (Annexure A-1) and the OM dated 14.10.1999 (Annexure A-2). It is further averred that though the due provision exists under FCS for the effective date of promotion to the next higher grade, either with effect from 1st January or from 1st July of every calendar year, based on the recommendations of the Assessment Board, the respondents in an arbitrary manner did not complete the said process prior to the due date of promotion, which caused delay in awarding the promotion to the applicants by due date and the applicants financially suffered and got career set back. They submitted representations to the respondents time and again but due relief had not been granted to them. They have submitted representations dated 01.05.2006, 02.08.2007, 30.05.2011, 01.06.2011, 29.06.2011 and 11.07.2011 which are at the Annexure A-1 (Colly) of the Paper Book. The applicants have averred that there are a number of similar cases where the requisite grades/promotions have been granted retrospectively i.e. from the date of their eligibility viz. (i) Dr. V.S. Rao Chintala and Ors. v. Secretary to the Government of India and Ors. [OA No. 2296/2009 decided on 04.08.2010] and (ii) Union of India and Anr. Vs. S.K. Murti [Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6864/2011 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.05.2011]. The copies of the above two judgments are annexed at Annexure A-10 and Annexure A-11 respectively. It is the case of the applicants that as per the extant Government instructions, the FCS being a Scheme for in situ promotion, and the applicants being eligible after completion of the prescribed period of residency in the Scientist levels, they are entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade of Scientists. As they have been promoted belatedly to the next higher post of Scientists and not granted retrospective in situ promotion, the respondents have violated the FCS guidelines. Thus, seeking justice and praying for the antedating of their promotion to the respective higher grades of Scientist they have jointly approached this Tribunal in the current OA.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicants Shri R. K. Kapoor assisted by Shri T.N. Tripathi contends that the FCS in situ promotion guidelines prescribe a detailed procedure to be followed. The respondents did not follow the same as they did not consider the applicant’s case as and when they were eligible, and approval of the competent authority was delayed, as a result, the bright Scientists like the applicants lost a good part of their service even after completing required residency period. He submits that their promotion was delayed in various grades varying from six months to six years. His contention was that as the process and procedure was not done as prescribed, the applicants were deprived of their timely FCS promotion. He, therefore, urged that the applicant’s In situ promotion to the respective grades of Scientists should be granted retrospectively, with effect from the date, they were eligible. He submitted that there were instances of retrospective promotion under FCS. Shri R.K. Kapoor submits that the case of the applicants is fully covered in all fours by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.K. Murti’s case (supra) and judgment of this Tribunal in Dr. V.S. Rao Chintala’s case (supra). He submits that this Tribunal should direct the respondents to grant promotion retrospectively. It is, therefore, urged to allow the Original Application.
4. On receipt of the notice from the Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply affidavit through Sh. D.S. Mahendru, learned senior Central Government counsel. During the final hearing, a status position on each of the applicants, except the applicant no.4, was furnished to highlight that the respondents have taken action to grant in situ promotions under FCS to the concerned applicants after proper assessment by Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) and Departmental Review Committee (DRC). Shri Mahendru submits that due to non-availability of ACRs, mainly because of the non-submission of ACRs by the concerned applicants, coupled with non-recording of assessment by the Reporting or Reviewing Officers in time, the in situ promotions under FCS were generally delayed. However, on receipt of their respective ACRs, they have been properly assessed and from the date that is applicable to them, they have been promoted. Referring to the details furnished in the rejoinder on the 4th applicant, Sh. Mahendru would submit that the applicant’s promotion case was also considered appropriately and the non-availability of ACRs was also the main reason for delayed in situ promotion under FCS. He further contends that the criteria for screening has been spelt by DOPandT OM dated 09.11.1998, as per which the eligibility of the applicants considered by the DSC as per the number of years of their residency in the feeder grade, promotions to the concerned applicants have taken place at right time. The DSC takes into account 100 marks for ‘Outstanding’, 80 marks for ‘Very Good’, 60 marks for ‘Good’, 40 marks for ‘Average’ and 0 marks for ‘Poor’ and on the basis of the said gradings, DSC examines the ACRs of all the Scientists and those who satisfy the minimum percentage of marks for eligibility subject to their qualifying residency period are promoted. Except the belated promotions, the DSC and DRC have taken into account the respective ACRs of the applicants concerned and have granted them the in situ promotions. Referring to the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No. 2296/2009, Shri Mahendru submits that the concerned Government Department have implemented the directions of the Tribunal in the said OA passed on 04.08.2010.
5. Having heard the rival contentions, we perused the pleadings. The issue involved in this OA is in narrow compass- Whether the respondents have followed the extant guidelines on in situ promotion of the applicants under FCS?
6. At this stage, we may refer to the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) which has been in operation in the Government of India for promotion of the Scientists in different grades and the guidelines have been issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) which are applicable for all the Departments and more so in the Ministry of Environment and Forest. These provide in situ promotion. With a view to remove short comings and inadequacies in the Scheme, a detailed Office Memorandum dated 9.11.1998 was issued by the DOPT outlines the procedure to be adopted for in situ promotion under FCS from Grade-A to Grade-G. From time to time the DOPandT has issued clarifications. Both the parties in support of their respective contentions relied on the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) OMs. Counsel for the applicants referred to the OM to submit that the Respondents have violated the said DOPT OM as the Promotion Panels were not prepared before 1st January and 1st July. On the contrary, Counsel for the Respondents contended that the OM was meant to avoid retrospective promotions. Thus, the OM dated 17.7.2002, we find, is very relevant for adjudication of the issue of retrospective promotion under FCS. The said OM reads as follows:-
“No.AB-14017/32/2002-Estt(RR)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training)
OFFICE MEMORandUM
Subject:-Flexible Complementing Scheme for scientists in Scientific and Technological Departments-Date of effect of promotions.
The recommendations made by the Fifth Central Pay Commission for modifying the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) in operation in scientific and technological departments for in situ promotion of scientific/technical personnel with a view to removing the shortcomings/inadequacies in the scheme had been examined some time back and this Department in O.M. No.2/41/97-PIC dated 9.11.1998 had issued detailed guidelines modifying the then existing FCS. From a number of references received in this Department, it appears that an element of confusion exists in some scientific departments on the date from which in situ promotions under FCS are to be given effect. Promotions are made effective from a prospective date after the competent authority has approved the same. This is the general principle followed in promotions and this principle is applicable in the case of in situ promotions under FCS as well.
2. As a matter of fact, no occasion requiring application of promotion with retrospective effect should arise in FCS cases, as it is provided in the rules for scientific posts that the Assessment Boards shall meet at least once a year to consider cases of in situ promotions. Rules notified for scientific posts also contain a provision for review of promotion by the Selection Committee/Assessment Board twice a year-before 1st January and 1st July of every year- and the Selection Committee/Assessment Board is required to make its recommendation on promotions keeping in view these crucial dates of 1st January and 1st July. The competent authority, which has to take a final view based on these recommendations, shall ensure that no promotion is granted with retrospective effect.
3. Hindi version will follow.
/sd/
(ALOK SAXENA)
DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA”
7. As per the Government of India guidelines on the FCS, minimum five years of residency are required for in situ promotion to various grades of Scientists under FCS. It also prescribes the procedure to be followed for in situ promotion through (i) Departmental Screening Committee DCS) and (ii) Departmental Review Committee (DRC). The Salient and important aspects of the same are as follows:-
The ACR would be the basis for assessment on a 10 point scale for screening each case.
Number of years of residency in the feeder grade of Scientist for promotion to higher level of Scientist is prescribed as against the minimum percentage to be achieved by the candidates for meeting the eligibility criteria, which is as follows:
Grade Number of years in the grade
3 4 5 6 7 8
Minimum percentage of marks for eligibility
Scientist B to
Scientist C 85% 80% 70% 65% 60% -
Scientist C to
Scientist D - 85% 80% 75% 70% 60%
Scientist D to
Scientist E - 85% 80% 75% 70% 60%
Scientist E to
Scientist F - - 85% 80% 75% 70%
Scientist F to
Scientist G - - 85% 80% 75% 70%
Once the officers become eligible for consideration by the DSC, they are called for interview and are assessed in 10 point scale by the DRC. The eligibility for promotion would be based on the norms of percentage given in the above table.
The period of residency is relaxable up to one year in case of ‘exceptionally meritorious’ Scientist.
Field experience of at least 5 years is essential for promotion under FCS to certain levels Scientists.
All candidates who have completed prescribed period of residency shall be reviewed for promotion by the DRC twice a year i.e. before 1st January and 1st July.
Those candidates after consideration who do not qualify for promotion, are to be placed for consideration by the DSC after one year.
The effective date of promotion of those found eligible shall be the date on which the panel is approved by the competent authority.
8. The respondents in their affidavit and in a written statement given in the hearing have analysed case of all applicants except 4th applicant. We, therefore, intend to go through the same along with applicant’s claim. Our careful perusal of the pleadings would reveal certain facts on the basis of which we are issuing certain specific directions, which must guide the respondents to take action.
Dr. M.A. Haque (Applicant No.1)
9. Dr. Haque joined as Scientist ‘D’ on 1.6.1989 and was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘E’ on 7.9.1984. After 5 years of residency period, he was considered to the Grade of Scientist ‘F’ w.e.f. 1.7.1999 but was not promoted on the basis of the gradings in his ACRs. He was again considered periodically and was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘F’ on 31.3.2001. After 5 years, he was due for promotion to the Grade of Scientist ‘G’, but could not be considered as on 1.1.2006 since his ACRs for the residency period were not complete. Further, he was on foreign assignment from 28.7.2002 to 27.7.2008. He was considered by the DSC under FCS as on 1.1.2010 but his case was deferred since his ACRs for four years (2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10) were not available. Dr. Haque retired from service without getting his next promotion as Scientist ‘G’. His claim was repelled by the respondents on the ground that as he was on foreign assignment, his ACRs for the said period was not available for DSC to consider him.
9.1 We note that the applicant was due for In situ promotion under FCS w.e.f. 2006. The DOPandT has issued guidelines on the ACRs for the Government employees on foreign assignment. The applicant’s foreign assignment was with the consent of the Government. In the absence of applicant’s ACRs for the foreign assignment period (July 2002 to July 2008), the concerned Controlling Officers from the Government should have got the applicant’s performance/assessment from the foreign organization where he was working and should have got the self appraised report from the applicant. By not doing so, the applicant could not be found fault with and put to disadvantage. Non-availability of the applicant’s ACRs from the foreign employer cannot stand against him for in situ promotion to Scientist-G when it was due to him i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The respondents are directed to take into account the available ACRs and any report received from the foreign employer reflecting applicant’s work and performance and consider the applicant’s in situ promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as per FCS. If he is found fit he should be granted in situ promotion notional basis right upto date of his superannuation and fix his revised pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits and pay him the arrears of retiral benefits. This direction is qua the applicant and is not intended for any generic direction.
Shri Rajiv Sinha (Applicant No.2)
10. He joined the Ministry as Scientist ‘D’ on 30.8.1996 on deputation basis and was absorbed in NRCD as on 16.6.2000. He was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘E’ on 27.6.2004. After completion of residency period of five years, he was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘F’ on 22.4.2010. His claim is that his residency period for promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘E’ should have been counted from 30.08.1996 when he came on deputation and not from 16.6.2000. Had such deputation period been taken into account, he would have got promotion in the year 2001. Further, it was claimed that he would have got his in situ promotion under FCS in Scientist Grade ‘F’ in the year 2006. He has been prejudiced by the non-consideration of his deputation period. The respondents have taken the stand that his this claim of the applicant is only an afterthought and is unsustainable in law as the applicant has filed this application after a lapse of 6 years and that too after getting promotion to the next two higher grades. He should have represented well in advance.
10.1 We have carefully examined the respondent’s contentions. The applicant’s case will not attract limitation, delay and latches as the relief claimed by him is consideration of promotion from the date of his initial deputation and thereafter his entitlement to be considered for further in situ promotion as consequential benefits. The cause of action is recurring in nature, as in case the deputation period is counted his in situ promotion will get ante-dated and his pay will be more in subsequent periods. Further, it is noted that extant guidelines issued by DOPandT envisage the manner in which deputation period of the Government employee when absorbed in the deputation post is to be treated. The respondents are duty bound to consider the same at the time of applicant’s absorption in the grade of Scientist ‘D’. The respondents are silent in their affidavit as well as during the hearing. Normally, where an officer comes from an analogous post with same pay scale to a post on deputation, when he gets absorbed in the said post he carries his seniority of the earlier post. In case the respondents find the applicant’s case is fit to carry his seniority w.e.f. his deputation date, he will be entitled to the consequential benefits like promotion to next higher grade(s). We would direct the respondents to examine the applicant’s case of absorption in the light of their existing guidelines and consider his claim of ante-dating of his in situ promotions to higher grade(s) as per FCS. In case the respondents decide in favour of the applicant, he will be entitled to consequential notional promotions with no back wages and if the decision goes against him, the respondents would pass a speaking and reasoned order with a copy to the applicant.
Dr. A.K. Tyagi (Applicant No.3)
11. He joined as Scientist ‘C’ on 16.10.1989 and after completion of 5 years of residency period and was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ on 30.01.1995 Again after completion of five years residency period he was considered as on 1.1.1999 for promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘E’ but was not found fit by the DSC as he could not meet the minimum percentage of marks. He was again considered on 1.1.2000, 1.1.2001, 1.1.2002 and 1.1.2003 but could not be found fit in the interview by the DRC. He was again considered as on 1.1.2004 and was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘E’ on 6.9.2004. After completion of five years residency period, he could not be considered for promotion to the next higher grade of Scientist ‘F’ due to non-availability of his ACRs for three years (2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09). He retired from service in December, 2009. His claim is that he is not responsible for not writing of his ACRs. He should be promoted to the post of Scientist ‘F’ level w.e.f. 1.1.2009. The respondents have opposed the above grounds. Shri Mahendru submits that the claim of the applicant that he spent about 10 years extra time in the same position as Scientist ‘D’ and finally retired on 31.12.2009 as Scientist ‘E’ instead of Scientist ‘G’ was factually incorrect since he could not be promoted from the grade of Scientist ‘D’ to ‘E’ as he could not meet the minimum percentage of marks required in the screening/interview from 1999 to 2003.
11.1 Above facts were carefully examined by us. We note that though applicant was considered for the years from 2000 to 2003, he was found unfit in the DRC interview for the post of Scientist ‘E’. But once he was promoted w.e.f. 06.09.2004, he was due to be considered for in situ promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘F’ under FCS after completion of requisite residency period. It is seen that he was due for such consideration w.e.f. 6.9.2009, and as he retired on 31.12.2009, if he found fit he would be entitled to the pension and other retirement benefits applicable to the higher post. Of course, non-consideration for such promotion on the ground that the ACRs for three years were not available for which he was not responsible, the applicant has been definitely prejudiced. The respondent’s are directed to consider applicant’s case for the Scientist ‘F’ w.e.f. 6.9.2009 and if found fit, he should be granted notional promotion but would be entitled to actual revised pension and retirement benefits w.e.f. 01.01.2010.
Dr. Naseem Ahmed (Applicant No.4)
12. The applicant joined in the Grade ‘C’ of the Scientist on 26.02.1990 and was promoted as Scientist ‘D’ on 01.01.1995 after a period of four years and 10 months. The next higher Grade for him is Scientist ‘E’ for which though he was eligible for promotion as on 01.01.2000 after completion of 5 years of residency period, he was promoted after 6 years and 11 months on 30.12.2001. The next higher Grade for him in the category of Scientists is Scientist ‘F’. Under FCS in situ promotion, he should have been promoted after putting in 5 years of residency period but he was promoted after a lapse of 5 years and 6 months on 21.08.2007. He is still in service and is due for retirement on 30.09.2015. His grievance is that had he been promoted to the level of Scientist ‘F’ on completion of 5 years of residency period in 2000, he would have got further promotions to the higher Grades in due time and would be eligible at present to be promoted to the Scientist ‘G’ level. As the applicant’s details were not available in the OA but was brought forward in the rejoinder, the respondents did not have appropriate opportunity to meet the allegations raised by the applicant in his favour in the rejoinder. However, Shri Mahendru, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that on the basis of directions of the Tribunal, the respondents would re-examine the case of the applicant properly.
12.1 Without knowing the reasons for non-promotion of the applicant in 2000 to the Grade of Scientist ‘E’, it would not be appropriate to give any specific direction in this regard. However, we would request the respondents to re-examine the case of the applicant dispassionately and consider if he would have been promoted to the Scientist ‘E’ Grade in the year 2000 and if so by getting such ante-dating promotion, the consequential promotions to the next higher Grades would need also further consideration.
Ms. Madhumita Biswas (Applicant No.5)
13. She joined on 17.7.1989 as Scientist ‘B’, and was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘C’ w.e.f. 1.7.1994. She was considered for further promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ as on 1.7.1999 but was not promoted. She was to be considered for promotion w.e.f. 1.7.2000, but her case remained pending because DOPandT vied O.M. dated 10.1.1998 conveyed that no person other than a person possessing the essential qualifications of at least a Master’s degree in Natural/Agricultural Sciences of Bachelor’s degree in Engineering or Technology or Medicine shall be eligible for promotion under FCS. She was appointed from Geography discipline and her case was pending. In the meantime, she proceeded on study leave from 12.12.2000 to 28.2.2005. On her joining on 1.3.2005, she was to be considered for promotion under FCS, but the question of Geography subject was not decided. Finally, on 9.5.2006 her subject Geography was approved under Natural Science. Therefore, her case was considered and she was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ w.e.f. 20.02.2007. She had represented in the past for effecting her promotion w.e.f. 1.7.2000, the date she became eligible for promotion but her request was rejected. The respondents aver that her representation was considered by the competent authority in consultation with DOPandT, who expressly advised that promotion from back date was not permissible and she was informed accordingly.
13.1 We have considered the contentions of the parties and noted that she was denied promotion w.e.f. 1.7.2000 when she was eligible for consideration but for the fact of Geography as part of Natural Science clarification came to be issued by the respondents only on 09.05.2006. The applicant has no fault in the said matter. Though the respondents have got such confirmation only on 09.05.2006, they should have considered applicant’s case for in situ promotion under FCS to the Scientist ‘D’ level retrospectively right from 01.07.2000. Retrospective in situ Promotion under FCS is admissible from the date of applicant’s eligibility. Respondents are, therefore, directed to consider applicant’s claim for promotion to Scientist ‘D’ level and if found fit, she will be entitled to all consequential benefits including pay and allowances and consideration of her case for further promotion as per FCS.
Dr. Husain Ahmad (Applicant No. 6)
14. The applicant joined on 6.1.1989 as Scientist ‘D’ and after completion of five years, he was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘E’ under FCS on 30.08.1994. He was considered by the DSC for promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘F’ as on 1.7.1999 after completion of minimum residency period of five years, but his case was deferred by the DSC due to non-availability of his complete ACRs for the residency period. He was again considered by the DSC as on 1.7.2000, 1.7.2001 and 1.7.2002, but was found unfit as he could not meet the minimum required percentage of marks in his ACRs. He was again considered for promotion as on 1.7.2003, but was not found fit for promotion by the DRC on the basis of his performance in the interview. Thereafter, he was again considered as on 1.7.2004 and was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘F’ w.e.f. 4.4.2005. He was again due for promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘G’ on 1.7.2010. He was not considered for promotion, since he retired from service in July, 2010. He claims that he should have been promoted as Scientist ‘F’ w.e.f. 1.7.1999 and thereafter to the grade of Scientist ‘G’ w.e.f. 1.7.2004. But the respondents aver that he was promoted to the post of Scientist ‘F’ on 4.4.2005 and a delay of 5 years 7 months is mainly due to the fact that he was considered as per the prescribed procedure as on 1.7.1999 but was deferred by the DSC due to incomplete ACRs and was found unfit by the DSC as on 1.7.2000, 1.7.2001 and 1.7.2002 as he could not meet minimum percentage of marks to be called for interview. He was not recommended by the DRC as on 1.7.2003, since he was not found fit in the interview.
14.1 Our thoughtful perusal of the pleadings disclose that non-availability of complete ACRs for which respondents are responsible, the applicant cannot be put to disadvantage. Hence, respondents are directed to review the applicant’s case for Scientist ‘F’ as on 1.7.1999 as his case was deferred then. Further, the respondents are directed to consider his case for promotion to Scientist ‘G’ level as he was eligible to be considered as on 1.7.2010. Further, if he is found fit on both accounts or in one of the aspects, he, being a retired Scientist, would be entitled to get revised pension including arrears of retirement benefits. If the decision of the respondents goes against the applicant, he should be conveyed the same with a speaking and reasoned order.
15. At this stage, we may refer to the orders of this Tribunal in Dr. V.S. Rao Chinthala’s (supra) which has been relied on by the applicants. In the said case in situ promotion of the applicants was delayed for different reasons. After detailed analysis of the applicant’s cases, the OA was allowed with the following directions:-
“14. Having gone through the prayers of the Applicants and the pleadings, we find that all the appropriate features of the FCS have not been wholly followed by the Respondents so much so, yearly assessment and half yearly review were not considered in the earlier years assessment and have not taken place before the crucial dates stipulated in the statutory rule. Therefore, not following the statutory rules in totality has prejudiced the Applicants and they have been deprived of their right and legitimate promotion prescribed under the FCS. Though as per the statutory rules, Respondents are mandated to undertake the assessments and the review of each case before specified dates (1st January or 1st July), therefore, the delay that has been identified in getting the in situ promotion under the FCS for each of the Applicants has been unexplainably enormous. If there would have been delay of few days, one can understand but when delay has been for months and years, administrative process lethargy and tardiness is quoted as reasons for such delay. Thus, such delay cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law. Therefore, we find that the non responsiveness of the Respondents has been the major factor for such delay in granting to the Applicants in situ promotion to the grade of Scientist-G.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and statutory provisions available for the in situ promotion and our detailed analysis on the issues, we direct the Respondents to consider each of the Applicant’s case for in situ promotion under FCS to Scientist-G grade according to their fulfillment of the residency period. If they are found eligible, they should be granted in situ promotion to the grade of Scientist-G with effect from 1st January or 1st July of the respective year, they are found to be eligible and the consequential benefits would accrue to them. The Respondents are further directed to review the case of the Applicants through appropriate Committee/Board as per FCS and such an exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
16. The Original Application is, therefore, allowed in terms of our above directions to the Respondents. In view of the typical nature of this case, we direct the respective parties to bear their own costs.”
16. On a query from the Bench, the learned counsel for the parties informed us that the above decision has been implemented by the concerned Departments.
17. The applicants in the instant OA are similarly placed and circumstanced as the applicants in Dr. V.S. Rao Chinghala’s case (supra). We are of the considered opinion that the present case is fully covered by the said judgment.
18. For the reasons given above, we direct the respondents to consider the case of each applicant separately on the basis of our observations in the paragraphs 9 to 14.1 above for in situ promotion under FCS to the respective higher grade(s). If they are found eligible and fit by the respective Committees, they would be granted promotion to the next higher grade(s) and consequential promotions as per FCS would also be considered wherever admissible. Further direction is issued to grant deemed promotion to those applicants who have retired and would be entitled to consequential retiral benefits including pension and arrears thereof. It goes without saying that the review DSC and DRC will meet for the above purpose. We also direct that the exercise, as ordained above, shall be undertaken as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
19. Resultantly, the OA having merits is allowed in terms of our orders, directions and observations within. There is no order as to cost.